Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6731801" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, you can have tacos, but you can't bring them somewhere until after you've gone there, or possibly simultaneously.  You can't bring tacos prior to arriving.In what way is it more elegant?  It's not more elegant in reference to the underlying question.  You can get pizza anytime you want -- it's not conditional on Wednesday or playing.  Asking someone to bring a pizza with them when they come to play on Wednesday, however, isn't any different from above -- you're phrasing isn't more elegant in that case, it's just more ambiguous.  If you want it to reflect the rules question, you have to make being able to get a pizza possible if and only if you come to play on Wednesday, in which case your phrasing is certainly not more elegant.The rule reads as 'when x, then y, otherwise no y'.  These strange rephrasings that aren't structured the same way aren't illuminative, they're just distracting.  Crawford issued his advice that you shouldn't read it the way it's written, or, more specifically, that you should squint at the wording and be allowed to purchase bonus actions on credit.  That's well and good, and a fine ruling, and I don't have much issue with it -- I allow it at my table.  However, arguing that because the ruling ignores the logic of the rules means that you should torture logic until it matches the ruling isn't itself logical.  Just roll with it and stop trying to find a strange way of using ambiguous language to get to a statement that allows you to pretend that the ruling follows a logical reading of the words.  It doesn't, and that's okay.</blockquote>

Verification